A good link is sports-related and encourages discussion among the community. SportsFilter is not a place to ask a question or merely state an opinion. Links should be about something new related to sports—such as a breaking news story, an interesting commentary, or a noteworthy sports site. ... A bad post on SportsFilter ignores the guidelines above in one of the following ways:

It doesn’t link to something new. Example: A link to ESPN.com with a question about whether a coach is about to be fired.

It doesn’t link to something noteworthy. Example: A link to your favorite team’s web site with your prediction they will “kick major tail this year.”

It links to old news. Example: A link to a week-old story on CNN.com about a prominent athlete’s drunk-driving arrest.

My rationale for the cited post was that DFA'ing Ortiz (as sorry as he is) could further pitch the trajectory of the DBacks win/loss column. As for why I went with a blog post rather than the news item; there has been prior discussion about trying to steer clear of major media outlets (CNN, ESPN, FOXSPORTS, etc.) to get a more nuanced look at the issues involved in the post. A blog post from a Rockies blogger about a former Rockies pitcher being DFA'ed after signing a large contract with a division rival seemed to fit the bill. I now await the damning of my selection.

I don't know. I liked the blog link. If it was an ESPN link, I would have wondered why a story about an underachieving pitcher getting sent down (other details notwithstanding) was on the front page. But the whole question of how a player as currently marginal as Ortiz becomes so hated in his own market is actually kind of interesting, and the blog entry reflects that part of the story better.

lilnemo, I wasn't damning you at all. Your post just brought up my question. I haven't't seen the discussion regarding staying away from the major news outlets. That sounds like a great idea. However, I will say that the blogger's paragraph really didn't add anything to the story. His was just a summary of the SI story without any additional information Since he was an ex-Giant wouldn't a link to a Giants blogger have made more sense? For that matter, maybe a link to a Diamondbacks blogger who thinks Ortiz could have turned it around?

I have had the hiccups for like 2 hours. This happens once in a while when I've been drinking. It results in me punching myself in the stomach as hard as I can out of pure frustration (cover story: trying to stop/ change the spasm in my diaphragm). For the record, that solution does not work.

The best solution I have found was holding your breath while plugging your ears for 30 seconds. However it is still only about 25% effective. Another one was filling a cup about 1/4 full of water, light a match, drop it in the cup and hold your hand over the cup. When it fills with as much smoke as it is going to, lift your hand just enough to sip the water. I never have matches so I'm not sure how effective it is. I thought it was a good question ?! The guideline does say, "an interesting commentary", doesn't a blog count as that (depending on the blog anyways) ?

I would have wondered why a story about an underachieving pitcher getting sent down (other details notwithstanding) was on the front page. It's believed to be the most money ($22 million) that a team has ever been willing to eat in cutting a player. I'm in no position to judge posts, but for what it's worth... for my part, I have no problem with blog links overall. I think lilnemo's rationale for choosing a blog for this story, in general, is solid. I didn't love this particular link because I felt it missed the most interesting points of the transaction. While it did mention what was remaining on the contract, it didn't specifically point out that the team stands to eat the $22 mil with nothing to show for it, or that it is believed to be the largest hit a team has ever absorbed by dropping a player.

Just concentrate on telling someone in the room with you that you are ABOUT to hiccup, you must concentrate and tell them immediately before you actually hiccup. AS odd as it sounds, this truly works....

It wasn't a taunt really, but it was snide. I know snide. That was snide. I don't like when people try to twist the "make good sports conversation" into an excuse for self-linking. Write a column, Slick.

Seriously. I mean, the site only has, like, five posted rules. 1. Link to something new. 2.Link to something noteworthy. 3. Don't link to old news. 4.Don't post a link on the front page to your own site or any other page you had a hand in creating. 5. Don’t discuss etiquette issues here—if you have a complaint about a member’s conduct, contact us. You would think these yahoos could follow these few simple guidelines. Sheesh. That isn't a swipe at the site. I just love irony. Is that snide?

We consistently break #5 though. Every one likes to gossip, no one really likes to be a snitch. Rule 1 tells you what to do and Rule 3 tells you what not to do? I can live with #1. Screw rule #3, I don't like being told what not to do.

Rules That Didn't Make it to the Top 5 List 6. Ignore rule #5 7. Please don't link to anything that is not current. 8. There is no "buts" to Rule 4. 9. Rules apply, even on Sunday, if the site is slow and if you really want to discuss pencil fighting as a sport. 10. Don't link to news that may not be considered fresh. 11. Sportsfilter.com is not a valid story link just because you can't help yourself from discussing Kobe. 12. DON'T WRITE IN ALL CAPS. 13. REALLY. 14. Don't abbreviate you as "u", because as "cuz" or sucks as "sux" please. If you do this, we'll only think its cuz u sux. 15. Make sure you're linking to a new story that would be considered timely.

This post had a topic? Oh, yeah. Hiccups. But, thanks, for answering the original question. I would love a well written, fact-loaded blog entry over ESPN, SI, or AP any day. But, I can't say blog over news outlet every time. If the entry just copies a few facts from the news article I'd rather see it directly from the source.

I think there should be a list of topics that are just straight up taboo to put on the front page. I'll start us off: 1. Anything about a football player going to jail 2. Anything with God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Odin, The Infinity Serpent, Set, Baal, Buddah, Vishnu, or Moses in the headline.(I have been guilty of this several times) 3. Here's a new one, Homosexuality. 4. Pete Fucking Rose and the baseball hall of fame 5. Motorcycle accidents 6. DWI, drug addiction, domestic violence, beastiality, armed robbery or battery. 7. Re-naming a possibly offensively named team Its not that these are bad topics (in fact some of them are pretty fun) but they seem to draw out some of the dumbest fucking people.

1. Fine, as long as I can still talk about basketball players going to jail, or football players failing a drug test. 2. No problem, there's still Karma. 3. What are you, a homophobe? 4. Won't that take away from the Bonds threads? 5. Not even if it was in a motorcycle race? 6. Crap, I guess I can't talk about a football player failing a drug test. 7. What about rcade's Oklahoma Sexuals?

If you don't like the dumbest fucking people I'd be more concerned about the Bonds and T.O. threads. Of course in the Bonds' threads, after the 150th comment you may be able to find the rare and ellusive rational discussion.